I didn't realize this is the legal section or there was a new std in the general.
It's as simple as this:
1. If a person says they have proof, they shouldn't be surprised when people ask to see it.
2. It's ridiculous to get bent out of shape when the proof can't be produced and pretend that the problem is the person asking for the proof and not the claim that can't be backed up.
Forgive me. I assumed that when you said 'I certainly don't want' that you weren't indifferent or, whatever you want to call your opinion, on this.
I think it's better for people to be trained.
The comment was made that we want untrained people out there--implying that is actually a desirable outcome. I said that's not what I want. From my perspective the desirable outcome is to see trained people, not untrained people. I think one is clearly better than the other and so I said so.
Not sure why your suddent pivot to police and military.
It's not a pivot, it's an example of two situations where people obviously see the benefit of training people before they are turned loose with guns.
I made that comment in response to the implication that I had a "concern" about untrained people. I said that I'm not concerned about untrained people (
i.e. they don't seem to be causing widespread problems or generating a lot of negative publicity for gun owners), but that training obviously provides benefits. Then I gave two examples where it is universally accepted that training people is beneficial to back up my assertion that training is beneficial.
Here's my position--I'll give myself a little interview.
1. Trained or untrained people with guns, which is better? Trained.
2. So you think training should be mandatory? No! Why give the government more power over gun owners than it already has? (That's rhetorical--the answer is that you absolutely shouldn't give them any more power. )
3. So you think that untrained people with guns are a menace to society and are causing widespread problems? Not that I can tell, but that doesn't mean they never cause any problems nor does it change the fact that trained is better than untrained.
4. But you are concerned about untrained people carrying guns, right? No, it doesn't seem to be a big problem--there doesn't seem to be a reason to be "concerned". But that doesn't mean that it never results in negative outcomes nor does it change the fact that trained is better than untrained.
5. So you're anti-gun--you think that guns are too dangerous to carry? No. I'm just saying that trained is obviously better than untrained or we wouldn't spend time and money training police and military to carry and use guns.
, two fingers (both index) through the trigger to operate trigger, etc....
